POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

At no time did i mention anything about 'altitude' of the planei suggested you go up in!

Groan!

It was with respect to lunk's post that I implied the factor of altitude in the effect and not with anything that you wrote. I included such a referrence in my reply to you for its historical (to this thread) relevance, nothing else.

Now you wrote, I include date and time info because it seems these posts of yours have vanished down the memory hole,I wonder why?:

QUOTE

(Tamborine man @ Mar 3 2011, 06:04 AM)

When sunset draws near, fix your gaze on the Sun; go up in a plane, fly west, and while you keep the Sun in sight, see if you can spot, or catch up with, the other sun that according to you supposedly has dipped below the horizon!

QUOTE

(Tamborine man @ Mar 5 2011, 12:54 AM)

I asked you to fix your eyes on the fully visible so-called 'refraction' Sun while flying west to see if you could ever catch up to the "material Sun", the one you claimed had dipped below the horizon.

Note in both cases, highlighted in red, are mention of two distinct suns.

And so, I am not lying so please retract this accusation:

QUOTE

I'm not implying anything of the sort. Again stop your bloody lying.On the contrary, in post no. 63 i make it perfectly clear you're talking about a refraction image.

Sorry I used "the out to lunch" expression. It was not appropriate and in no manner was intended as a "put down" reference.

It looks to me that papers that do not agree with the AGW do not qualify in yout view of the controversy.

Debate is a waist of time. Neither of us is going to change his position. Particularly in my case. I was a believer in GW with some doubts about the human component. Now I am in the "deniers" corner with very little doubt.

I hope we can delay any drastic set of decisions for the next three years. By them reality will be our best supporter.

When you request some evidence be given by tumetuestumefaisdubien I am not sure what you mean, but if you Google for "temperature data controversy" you get over 4 million entries. Both groups AGW and "denialists" have accused each other of almost any thing.

The only thing that is clear and undisputable is the raw data and algorithms to normalize the data are not made available for true peer review. So is the case with the computer models, which so far have not been able to forecast anything that demonstrates the level of skill that is required to spend billions of dollars to address a potentially non-existing problem.

This is a bit like the year 2K nonsense. Anyone that truly new the "legacy" systems (I count myself in that group) could not comprehend the hysteria around that issue. I was very glad that Korea and Russia made a public announcement that they were not going to do anything.

Well, nothing untoward happened in Korea or Russia. If they would have participated in the rescue project or make no public statements I can see the celebracions and medals that would have been awarded to the heroes that save the world from an inminent catastrophy.

If the AGW advocates carry the day and we embark upon the carbon cap and other forms of controlling CO2, image the celebracions when nothing happens. They have truly rescue mother earth.

However, if GW were to continue they will say that we took actions past the tipping point. Have we all listen and mobilize the world before the tipping point, as they told us, we would have prevented the problem.

Sorry I used "the out to lunch" expression. It was not appropriate and in no manner was intended as a "put down" reference.

OK We'll put that one behind us.

QUOTE

It looks to me that papers that do not agree with the AGW do not qualify in yout view of the controversy.

One has to look at the source of any papers and who the paymasters are behind those who produce them. Until I know from where you are getting your information accurate commentary is difficult but I suspect that WUWT, ClimateAudit, SPPI, and the likes of Ian Plimer and Bob Carter are there too.

Trouble is there are a number of scientists, some with a track record of opposing action on the other topics mentioned, who keep producing obfuscatory material or testimony as with Christy's recent on to the House Commission, read about that here:

Seriously, to get some idea of how the message has been distorted by payees of the fossil fuel industry such as Pat Michaels who worked for Western Fuels in the 1990s and is still coy today about the remuneration he gets from the FFF (fossil fuel faction - including reliant industries such as road and rail transport):

Michaels was one of three delayer types at the last House Congressional Committee thrash with Robert Baird as chair.

Here is Ben Santer batting away an obfuscatory statement by Michaels:

Now Ben Santer has, probably more than even Michael Mann, reason to counter Michaels given Michaels', along with Fred Singer and Fred Seitz, scurrilous attempts to discredit Santer over his involvment with the writing of the 1995-6 IPCC report which is so well documented in Naomi Oreskes', 'Merchants of Doubt', the gist of which covered in this:

(trouble is a flood of denier nonsense, including the so called 'ClimateGate', has flowed under the bridge since that was made) and Steve Schneider's, 'Science as a Contact Sport'. BTW the papers of Tyndall, Fourier, Arrhenius and Callendar have been include in the recently published The Warming Papers .

QUOTE

Debate is a waist of time. Neither of us is going to change his position. Particularly in my case. I was a believer in GW with some doubts about the human component. Now I am in the "deniers" corner with very little doubt.

Debate is never a waste of time, if carried out calmly and rationally.What you need to keep in mind:

It has been proven that, even in small concentrations, CO2 inhibits the radiation of light in the IR range and by causing an radiation imbalance causes the planet to warm up.

That it is CO2 causing the warming is proven by a number of means including satellite data that registers a rise in temperature of the troposphere and a drop in temperature in the stratosphere. If it was the sun alone we would expect the opposite. Another pointer is that diurnal temperature differences are less, i.e. night times are warming faster than daytimes, once again not the sun.

It has been calculated how much CO2 is being produced annually by human activity burning fuel, cement production and so on and that this human fraction in the atmosphere can be differentiated by isotopic analysis.

There is more of course, much much more. In short none of the arguments that try to deny that recent planet warming is due to man taking charge of the Earth's thermostat stand up to close scrutiny.

QUOTE

I hope we can delay any drastic set of decisions for the next three years. By them reality will be our best supporter.

The Greenland ice sheet is already melting earlier in the year and over greater areas year on year there is little time. If Greenland adds significantly to sea level it will lift the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (already showing signs of instability due to its base being below sea level) off the base with a sudden increase in Antarctic contributions to sea level rise. As it is it is known that East Antarctica is losing ice mass.

When ice mas is lost at Antarctica or Greenland it means that the surface altitude reduces - down into warmer air which further speeds up the melt.

The thing is about warming and CO2, the Earth takes time to restore radiation balance after an addition of atmospheric CO2 thus the amount we have added thus far is still to work through into a further rise in temperature.

So is the case with the computer models, which so far have not been able to forecast anything that demonstrates the level of skill that is required to spend billions of dollars to address a potentially non-existing problem.

There are many different forms of computer model, used for different purposes within climate research. Whatever, climate models by different organisations in different countries have agreed on outcomes with a high degree of concordance.

QUOTE

If the AGW advocates carry the day and we embark upon the carbon cap and other forms of controlling CO2, image the celebracions when nothing happens. They have truly rescue mother earth.

Reality isn't going to be like that, even if we stopped emissions tomorrow there is still warming and melting in the pipeline for reasons hinted at above. Any further delay will only mean that more draconian measures will be required.

Surely anybody alive and aware knows that the climate is already perturbed!

QUOTE

However, if GW were to continue they will say that we took actions past the tipping point. Have we all listen and mobilize the world before the tipping point, as they told us, we would have prevented the problem.

Heads they win, tails they win.

The rest of us will be a lot poorer.

That is totally upside down thinking.

I'll have to stop here, I had much more to include above but my fingers are bleeding again and other things are pressing me.

EDIT:

PS. Download and read the PDF which includes stuff on the Wegman Report - another dark trip into the denier s***hole, from here:

However, if GW were to continue they will say that we took actions past the tipping point. Have we all listen and mobilize the world before the tipping point, as they told us, we would have prevented the problem.

It's much colder here than last year. Precipitation, rain or snow, has been increasing the last few years. The gulf stream, the warm ocean current that moderates Europe's' climate, and regulates the jet stream, has stopped. We are going into sudden changes in the climate, i think, that we are on the verge of another ice age. Sea-level will drop considerably, and hopefully it will be warmer down there...then.